Hat tip to Beowulf over at protheism for this utterly funny effort at bigotry.
Frank Turek gets the Asshat of the Month award.
Go ahead and read it. It’s utterly hysterical. Fraught with false dilemmas, strawmen, unsubstantiated data; you name it, it’s in here.
I didn’t check his book sources, but I did a little checking up on his online resources – most of them choked, what a surprise.
(I went from the bottom up, by the way.)
He links up to Andrew Sullivan’s blog, all you get is the most recent post. I can excuse this. But do a search on his blog, you’ll find this:
"Stanley Kurtz is the 'EverReady Bunny' of the same-sex marriage debate, a character who moves forward unrelentingly on a quest to prove that same-sex marriages are harmful. He is sure that state recognition of lesbian and gay unions in Europe has harmed the institution of marriage. But he never quite settles on a reason why this should be so, and his most recent argument illustrates the wildly unscientific thinking behind a lot of the American opposition to same-sex marriage”
“Their new and meticulously researched book, from Oxford University Press, can be found here. It's a very thorough and scholarly account of the experience of same-sex legal partnerships in Scandinavia. If you need a respite from hysteria and ideology, it's a good place to start.”
Which links here, a clear refutation of this idiocy.
Frank Turek gets the Asshat of the Month award.
Go ahead and read it. It’s utterly hysterical. Fraught with false dilemmas, strawmen, unsubstantiated data; you name it, it’s in here.
I didn’t check his book sources, but I did a little checking up on his online resources – most of them choked, what a surprise.
(I went from the bottom up, by the way.)
He links up to Andrew Sullivan’s blog, all you get is the most recent post. I can excuse this. But do a search on his blog, you’ll find this:
"Stanley Kurtz is the 'EverReady Bunny' of the same-sex marriage debate, a character who moves forward unrelentingly on a quest to prove that same-sex marriages are harmful. He is sure that state recognition of lesbian and gay unions in Europe has harmed the institution of marriage. But he never quite settles on a reason why this should be so, and his most recent argument illustrates the wildly unscientific thinking behind a lot of the American opposition to same-sex marriage”
“Their new and meticulously researched book, from Oxford University Press, can be found here. It's a very thorough and scholarly account of the experience of same-sex legal partnerships in Scandinavia. If you need a respite from hysteria and ideology, it's a good place to start.”
Which links here, a clear refutation of this idiocy.
His next online link comes up so:
“The page you are trying to view doesn't exist.
We have recently redesigned our web site and apologize if you are experiencing any difficulty. Please use our new navigation and search feature or point your browser to PrisonFellowship.org.”
I can let that go. He should update his ‘work’ more periodically.
The next link comes up with:
“Marriage: Still the Safest Place For Women and Children by Robert E. Rector, Patrick F. Fagan, and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D.
March 9, 2004
The institution that most strongly protects mothers and children from domestic abuse and violent crime is marriage. Analysis of ten years worth of findings from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has conducted since 1973, demonstrates that mothers who are or ever have been married are far less likely to suffer from violent crime than are mothers who never marry.”
No causal link here. What a surprise. What’s this got to do with gay marriage? NOTHING.
Next link:
“Why is it in the Government's Interest to Save Marriages?
By Michael J. McManus
February 25, 2002
As President of Marriage Savers, a national non-profit organization whose goal is to reduce the divorce rate, strengthen marriages and restore hope to children in distressed marriages I enthusiastically endorse House Bill 1301 Sponsored by Rep. Gary Hopper and Reps. Hills, Gillman, Graf, Stohl, Coos, Boyce, Roberge, Johnson and Matthew Quandt.
This bill would permit no-fault divorce on grounds of irreconcilable differences for couples without minor children. However, if there are minor children, the person who wants a divorce would have to prove the other person is at fault having committed adultery, been arrested for a felony or been physically abusive. New Hampshire could lead America in reforming unilateral divorce.
As President Bush asserted last year, "We know that children who grow up with absent fathers can suffer lasting damage. They are more likely to end up in poverty or drop out of school, become addicted to drugs, have a child out-of- wedlock or end up in prison." Statistically, children of divorce are twice as likely as those from intact homes to drop out of school and are six times as likely to be poor or to commit suicide. Fatherless girls are three times as apt to give birth to out-of-wedlock children themselves, expanding the welfare culture into the next generation.”
It’s a pretty fair article, but again, this has no causal link to gay marriage whatsoever. Quite off the beaten path, I’d say. I’m foursquare against the government having a say in whether or not a couple should remain married, children or not. That’s too much control for an administration that can’t even run its own nose if it had a bad cold.
Next link:Illustrates the positive effect of marriage. I’d say this shoots the asshat right in the foot.
Next link is from Johnny Asshat, an extraordinarily bad piece of investigative reporting:
“MARRIAGE IS SLOWLY DYING IN SCANDINAVIA. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern--including gay marriage--is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has.
More precisely, it has further undermined the institution. The separation of marriage from parenthood was increasing; gay marriage has widened the separation. Out-of-wedlock birthrates were rising; gay marriage has added to the factors pushing those rates higher. Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.”
This bozo doesn’t provide any link between hetero- and homosexual marriages other than they’re in the same country. This sort of bullshit is irritating, to say the least. Here’s a PROFOUND piece of stupidity:
Out-of-wedlock birthrates were rising; gay marriage has added to the factors pushing those rates higher.
You may ask, “What the fuck?!?!?” I asked the same thing. How on earth does anyone come to such a stupid conclusion? Are more unmarried women having children doing so because of gay marriage? Are gay men procreating with unmarried women? The author applies the slippery slope in such a way, that he slips and breaks his fragile ass.
I have debunked this asshat’s arguments here – but this yobbo uses the same stilted arguments every theist does. Think of the children! Real Americans aren’t gay! He says "gender is essential. (There’s only one race—the human race-- but there are two genders.)" – Showing a profound ignorance on the subject. Claims that it would be special rights (more bigotry), and here is more twaddle:
Why allow traditional marriage but prevent same-sex marriage?
a. Because traditional marriage is our national immune system. It protects us from disease and social costs. When our marriages are strong, our society is strong. When our marriages are weak, we all suffer.
b. Traditional marriage:
i. Improves health and lengthens the life span of the man and the woman.
ii. Protects women from uncommitted men.
iii. Lowers welfare costs to society.
iv. Lowers the crime rate (marriage civilizes men and focuses them on productive pursuits).
v. Procreates and encourages an adequate replacement birth rate
c. Children from traditional marriage homes are:
i. Seven times less likely to live in poverty
ii. Six times less likely to commit suicide
iii. Less than half as likely to commit crime
iv. Less than half as likely to become pregnant out of wedlock
v. Healthier physically and emotionally when they reach adulthood
vi. Do better academically and socially
d. Children from fatherless homes account for:
i. 60% of America's rapists
ii. 63% of America’s youth suicides
iii. 70% of America’s long-term prison inmates
iv. 70% of America’s reform school attendees
v. 71% of America’s teenage pregnancies
vi. 71% of America’s high school dropouts
vii. 72% of America’s adolescent murderers
viii. 85% of America’s youth prisoners
ix. 85% of America’s youth with behavioral disorders
x. 90% of America’s runaways
e. Same-sex marriage would not benefit, but hurt traditional marriage and society.
Does he provide any substantial proof that same-sex marriage would impact ANY of these things? No. He uses studies from ANOTHER country (note that he doesn’t pull any studies from France, Germany, Portugal, Hungary, or someplace more American, like Massachusetts, Conneticut, or Vermont – and he applies that bullshit old chestnut, those nasty ole ‘activist’ judges routine to those), and draws a weak premise based on his own noxious discrimination bias. He plays the ‘patriot’ card, the ‘protect the children’ card, and ‘indoctrination’; oh, you name it, he uses every shit piece of argumentation.
Love this piece of trash:
“First, everyone in America has the same rights. We all have the same right to marry any qualified person from the opposite sex. What homosexuals want is special rights– the special right to marry someone of the same sex. But why stop there? If homosexuals have a right to get married, then how can they say a man has no right to marry his daughter, his dog, his father, or three women and a poodle? Should bisexuals be permitted to marry two people?”
How is the choice to marry the person you love ever a special right? Answer: it’s not. This is the bigot’s response. This is a limpdick effort to establish that one subsection of humanity is somehow lesser than the ‘norm’. And then lumping it in with incest, bestiality, polygamy combined with bestiality? What a fucktard.
“Indeed. Homosexuals want the courts to grant them legal and, therefore, social approval for their lifestyle because they know that they cannot win such approval by a fair vote of the people.”
Argument from popularity.
Finally, while proponents of same-sex marriage cast this as a moral issue (that’s why they use the word “rights”), they lack any moral authority for their position. By whose standard of morality must same-sex marriage be legalized? Certainly the Constitution says nothing about same-sex marriage. Is there a standard beyond the Constitution? Yes, God-- but God is the last subject homosexual activists want to bring up. If they appeal to God and His absolute Moral Law– the Moral Law the Declaration of Independence says is “self-evident”– then they have to make the case that God believes same-sex marriage is a right. That’s anything but self-evident as the entire history of religion, human civilization, and the design of the human body attests.
Newsflash, asshole: this is just a weak effort to get your ‘god’ into the Constitution – a clearer violation of the First Amendment, I haven’t seen yet. So those of us who don’t believe get it shoved down our throats? Yeah, real patriotic, thanks. Entire history of civilization? Not a history major, obviously. Design of the human body? Why does anyone derive any pleasure from it, if that’s so?
All through this obnoxious document are littered efforts to poison the well, a grab bag of logical fallacies that would be vastly amusing – if this were an effort at satire, that is.
Yeah, the ‘smoking gun’ misfired already – right into this mental midget’s foot.
Final analysis: fanatic fucktard.
I’m through being nice about this. When an opinion I oppose becomes a law – even the effort at making it a law – then it’s an opinion no longer. If a piece of legislation demands that a subsection of humanity is deprived of their rights, due to their sexual proclivities involving consenting adults, then that’s bigotry. Pure and simple.
That’s hate, finely nuanced, but hate nonetheless.
Let’s make a perfectly valid comparison here. The exact same arguments were used by the Nazis about the Jews, over seventy years ago. All efforts to dehumanize a human target.
That’s intolerable, in my book.
Till the next post, then.
“The page you are trying to view doesn't exist.
We have recently redesigned our web site and apologize if you are experiencing any difficulty. Please use our new navigation and search feature or point your browser to PrisonFellowship.org.”
I can let that go. He should update his ‘work’ more periodically.
The next link comes up with:
“Marriage: Still the Safest Place For Women and Children by Robert E. Rector, Patrick F. Fagan, and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D.
March 9, 2004
The institution that most strongly protects mothers and children from domestic abuse and violent crime is marriage. Analysis of ten years worth of findings from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has conducted since 1973, demonstrates that mothers who are or ever have been married are far less likely to suffer from violent crime than are mothers who never marry.”
No causal link here. What a surprise. What’s this got to do with gay marriage? NOTHING.
Next link:
“Why is it in the Government's Interest to Save Marriages?
By Michael J. McManus
February 25, 2002
As President of Marriage Savers, a national non-profit organization whose goal is to reduce the divorce rate, strengthen marriages and restore hope to children in distressed marriages I enthusiastically endorse House Bill 1301 Sponsored by Rep. Gary Hopper and Reps. Hills, Gillman, Graf, Stohl, Coos, Boyce, Roberge, Johnson and Matthew Quandt.
This bill would permit no-fault divorce on grounds of irreconcilable differences for couples without minor children. However, if there are minor children, the person who wants a divorce would have to prove the other person is at fault having committed adultery, been arrested for a felony or been physically abusive. New Hampshire could lead America in reforming unilateral divorce.
As President Bush asserted last year, "We know that children who grow up with absent fathers can suffer lasting damage. They are more likely to end up in poverty or drop out of school, become addicted to drugs, have a child out-of- wedlock or end up in prison." Statistically, children of divorce are twice as likely as those from intact homes to drop out of school and are six times as likely to be poor or to commit suicide. Fatherless girls are three times as apt to give birth to out-of-wedlock children themselves, expanding the welfare culture into the next generation.”
It’s a pretty fair article, but again, this has no causal link to gay marriage whatsoever. Quite off the beaten path, I’d say. I’m foursquare against the government having a say in whether or not a couple should remain married, children or not. That’s too much control for an administration that can’t even run its own nose if it had a bad cold.
Next link:Illustrates the positive effect of marriage. I’d say this shoots the asshat right in the foot.
Next link is from Johnny Asshat, an extraordinarily bad piece of investigative reporting:
“MARRIAGE IS SLOWLY DYING IN SCANDINAVIA. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern--including gay marriage--is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has.
More precisely, it has further undermined the institution. The separation of marriage from parenthood was increasing; gay marriage has widened the separation. Out-of-wedlock birthrates were rising; gay marriage has added to the factors pushing those rates higher. Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.”
This bozo doesn’t provide any link between hetero- and homosexual marriages other than they’re in the same country. This sort of bullshit is irritating, to say the least. Here’s a PROFOUND piece of stupidity:
Out-of-wedlock birthrates were rising; gay marriage has added to the factors pushing those rates higher.
You may ask, “What the fuck?!?!?” I asked the same thing. How on earth does anyone come to such a stupid conclusion? Are more unmarried women having children doing so because of gay marriage? Are gay men procreating with unmarried women? The author applies the slippery slope in such a way, that he slips and breaks his fragile ass.
I have debunked this asshat’s arguments here – but this yobbo uses the same stilted arguments every theist does. Think of the children! Real Americans aren’t gay! He says "gender is essential. (There’s only one race—the human race-- but there are two genders.)" – Showing a profound ignorance on the subject. Claims that it would be special rights (more bigotry), and here is more twaddle:
Why allow traditional marriage but prevent same-sex marriage?
a. Because traditional marriage is our national immune system. It protects us from disease and social costs. When our marriages are strong, our society is strong. When our marriages are weak, we all suffer.
b. Traditional marriage:
i. Improves health and lengthens the life span of the man and the woman.
ii. Protects women from uncommitted men.
iii. Lowers welfare costs to society.
iv. Lowers the crime rate (marriage civilizes men and focuses them on productive pursuits).
v. Procreates and encourages an adequate replacement birth rate
c. Children from traditional marriage homes are:
i. Seven times less likely to live in poverty
ii. Six times less likely to commit suicide
iii. Less than half as likely to commit crime
iv. Less than half as likely to become pregnant out of wedlock
v. Healthier physically and emotionally when they reach adulthood
vi. Do better academically and socially
d. Children from fatherless homes account for:
i. 60% of America's rapists
ii. 63% of America’s youth suicides
iii. 70% of America’s long-term prison inmates
iv. 70% of America’s reform school attendees
v. 71% of America’s teenage pregnancies
vi. 71% of America’s high school dropouts
vii. 72% of America’s adolescent murderers
viii. 85% of America’s youth prisoners
ix. 85% of America’s youth with behavioral disorders
x. 90% of America’s runaways
e. Same-sex marriage would not benefit, but hurt traditional marriage and society.
Does he provide any substantial proof that same-sex marriage would impact ANY of these things? No. He uses studies from ANOTHER country (note that he doesn’t pull any studies from France, Germany, Portugal, Hungary, or someplace more American, like Massachusetts, Conneticut, or Vermont – and he applies that bullshit old chestnut, those nasty ole ‘activist’ judges routine to those), and draws a weak premise based on his own noxious discrimination bias. He plays the ‘patriot’ card, the ‘protect the children’ card, and ‘indoctrination’; oh, you name it, he uses every shit piece of argumentation.
Love this piece of trash:
“First, everyone in America has the same rights. We all have the same right to marry any qualified person from the opposite sex. What homosexuals want is special rights– the special right to marry someone of the same sex. But why stop there? If homosexuals have a right to get married, then how can they say a man has no right to marry his daughter, his dog, his father, or three women and a poodle? Should bisexuals be permitted to marry two people?”
How is the choice to marry the person you love ever a special right? Answer: it’s not. This is the bigot’s response. This is a limpdick effort to establish that one subsection of humanity is somehow lesser than the ‘norm’. And then lumping it in with incest, bestiality, polygamy combined with bestiality? What a fucktard.
“Indeed. Homosexuals want the courts to grant them legal and, therefore, social approval for their lifestyle because they know that they cannot win such approval by a fair vote of the people.”
Argument from popularity.
Finally, while proponents of same-sex marriage cast this as a moral issue (that’s why they use the word “rights”), they lack any moral authority for their position. By whose standard of morality must same-sex marriage be legalized? Certainly the Constitution says nothing about same-sex marriage. Is there a standard beyond the Constitution? Yes, God-- but God is the last subject homosexual activists want to bring up. If they appeal to God and His absolute Moral Law– the Moral Law the Declaration of Independence says is “self-evident”– then they have to make the case that God believes same-sex marriage is a right. That’s anything but self-evident as the entire history of religion, human civilization, and the design of the human body attests.
Newsflash, asshole: this is just a weak effort to get your ‘god’ into the Constitution – a clearer violation of the First Amendment, I haven’t seen yet. So those of us who don’t believe get it shoved down our throats? Yeah, real patriotic, thanks. Entire history of civilization? Not a history major, obviously. Design of the human body? Why does anyone derive any pleasure from it, if that’s so?
All through this obnoxious document are littered efforts to poison the well, a grab bag of logical fallacies that would be vastly amusing – if this were an effort at satire, that is.
Yeah, the ‘smoking gun’ misfired already – right into this mental midget’s foot.
Final analysis: fanatic fucktard.
I’m through being nice about this. When an opinion I oppose becomes a law – even the effort at making it a law – then it’s an opinion no longer. If a piece of legislation demands that a subsection of humanity is deprived of their rights, due to their sexual proclivities involving consenting adults, then that’s bigotry. Pure and simple.
That’s hate, finely nuanced, but hate nonetheless.
Let’s make a perfectly valid comparison here. The exact same arguments were used by the Nazis about the Jews, over seventy years ago. All efforts to dehumanize a human target.
That’s intolerable, in my book.
Till the next post, then.
20 comments:
Ka posted:'“Marriage: Still the Safest Place For Women and Children by Robert E. Rector, Patrick F. Fagan, and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D."
He's got to be kidding??? The majority of women who end up dead are killed by their husbands ESPECIALLY pregnant women!
Oh how these blantant lies piss me right the fuck off!
Another posting:'This bill would permit no-fault divorce on grounds of irreconcilable differences for couples without minor children. However, if there are minor children, the person who wants a divorce would have to prove the other person is at fault having committed adultery, been arrested for a felony or been physically abusive. New Hampshire could lead America in reforming unilateral divorce.'
BULLSHIT! Yes, women who have children out of wed lock are more likely to be impoverished, but only because the christian he-man women haters club make it impossible for women to provide for their children by making sure that male dominated proffessions get well over paid and female dominated jobs well under paid! I.E. Football players vs teachers. And they fail to mention the fact the a good percentage of men just run off cuz they dont want to be tied down to children!
And making it harder for women to divorce only leads to more DEAD women and children!
I just recently got into with a stupid military wife who said I was a horrible mother because I dont want my daughters to have a traditional style wedding and marriage. I want my daughters to keep their own name and their children given THEIR name NOT the fathers. And I refuse to pay for a christian wedding that portrays women as property of the father given to the husband waiting for his unblemished piece of property to be given to him by her father. ITs ABSOLUTELY disgusting! What I will pay for and go all out for is a pagan style handfasting where no one is waiting at the alter for their unblemished property or a buddhist style.That is, if they want to get married at all, weather they want to have children or not. I really hate military wives! They are all brainwashed idiots!
Here is another lie! 'i. Improves health and lengthens the life span of the man and the woman."
While married men do live longer, married women actually have a shorter life span. Now I dont believe that for every married woman, just those married to christian men who enforce their authorty, denying women some kind of life or identity of their own.
Ewww, this one gets right under my skin!
'Lowers the crime rate (marriage civilizes men and focuses them on productive pursuits)
WTF! Why do we have to be responsible for taming men??? Men need to be responsible for their own behavior and women need to start expecting that and raising our sons to be accountable!
Another unfounded statement presented as fact! 'Healthier physically and emotionally when they reach adulthood'
I'd like to see the sudies and research cuz the studies and research done by feminist studies show that boys raised by single mothers have more respect and make better husbands than those raised with fathers in the home.
Ka said:"That’s intolerable, in my book."
I second that!
SNTC:
Whoo-wee, that's some rant, darlin'!
While married men do live longer, married women actually have a shorter life span.
I'd always thought that was the other way around?
Color me curious (& I'm just asking here, don't get upset), but are you an anarcha-feminist? I was researching anarchism, came across this, & I thought of you for some reason:
"Anarcha-feminism combines anarchism with feminism. It views patriarchy as a manifestation of hierarchy and, thus, as a fundamental problem of society. Anarcha-feminists believe that the struggle against patriarchy is an essential part of class struggle, and the anarchist struggle against the State and capitalism. In essence, the philosophy sees anarchist struggle as a necessary component of feminist struggle and vice-versa."
http://www.answers.com/topic/anarcha-feminism
Mind you, I'm just asking (ducking his head). ;)
(standing ovation for KA’s post-- really, I stood up!)
aviaa:
Thanks, doll. Appreciated.
I usually don't like to blast away at people, but there's no being rational w/the irrational.
I sent Turek an email about this. I usually (99% of the time, at least) let the criticized know of it, 1 way or another (I've done this w/everyone except that bozo who claimed that the renaming of planets was a political statement).
Let's see if he steps up to bat, or goes whining to a lawyer.
Ka
Lol, I was on a bit of a roll. Sorry if I scared you or anyone else, I just had to vent after dealing with that stupid military wife. And by no means am I offended by your question. Yes, to some extent you could say I am an anarcha feminist. I dont necessarily want to overthrow the government, but I sure would like to see some women up there calling the shots, especially when it comes to our childrens education & futures, war and womens issues. We need to have our own little branch that keeps a keen eye on the he-man women hater clubbers.
I also I find it absolutely crazy how the fudies always find a way to tie evey issue they dont agree with to the loss of control of women and how that causes such a frenzy. OH NO...women having babies all on their own! Shit, lookout its the end of the world! lol And just how in the hell are gay marriages causing women not to marry and have kids out of wedlock? Women are choosing not to marry more and more cuz most men are (sorry guys this may hurt, but you are one of the many few who are not) assholes! Why should women have to settle for an asshole to have children? It has absolutely nothing to do with gays getting married, it is women finally doing what they want to do without needing a mans permission and thats all it is. It kind of reminds me of reffer maddness, when anslinger(?) said that if we didnt ban weed the mexicans will would come over and lure women away with it. Absolutely STUPIDLY RETARDED!
SNTC:
Lol, I was on a bit of a roll. Sorry if I scared you or anyone else, I just had to vent after dealing with that stupid military wife.
Hey, de nada, doll.
I dont necessarily want to overthrow the government, but I sure would like to see some women up there calling the shots, especially when it comes to our childrens education & futures, war and womens issues
Women are definitely the more rational of the (2?) genders, that's for sure.
Women are choosing not to marry more and more cuz most men are (sorry guys this may hurt, but you are one of the many few who are not) assholes!
Well I...thank you for that. Sometimes I watch my fellow guys, & just shake my head, & blink.
And just how in the hell are gay marriages causing women not to marry and have kids out of wedlock?
Unsubstantiated slippery slope. Yeah, that just gets up my nose, it does.
KA...you sure find the interesting sites! I didn't know whether to laugh or cry at this guy's statements. Personally, I think that any committed couple (trio, whatever), as long as they are legal adults and in full ownership of their senses, should be able to have legal rights. Since when is love only between two people of the opposite sex? Why CAN'T I marry 2 men, if I love them both? I'm not talking about forced marriage, or the stupid sect of Mormans who believe that only married women will go to heaven, but if legal adults want to live and love in groups and MOST IMPORTANTLY everyone involved agrees on it, where is the harm?
OK, off the rant and on to dinner...
maggie:
KA...you sure find the interesting sites! I didn't know whether to laugh or cry at this guy's statements.
Well, I've come across this nonsense before. I've debunked it twice before - but I may as well stuff my mouthful of marbles & yell at the ocean like Demosthenes(?), for all the good it does.
Why CAN'T I marry 2 men, if I love them both?
Long as you don't marry your poodle & a couch. ;)
Stay tuned - soon I will prove conclusively that all these religious clowns don't have a constitutional leg to stand on.
Aw, gee, KA, and I was already planning on inviting you to the wedding. You know, it was going to be like one of those mass weddings you see shots of, but this one would be just me with ALL of my favorite persons and things... lol :)
maggie:
You know, it was going to be like one of those mass weddings you see shots of, but this one would be just me with ALL of my favorite persons and things... lol :)
You little polygamous paraphile! ;)
I am an atheist from India.
As many of you may know, in India, marriage is Only-Once-in-a-life-time thing, and it is a permanent bond between a man and a woman. It has nothing to do with god or religion. It is a socially sanctioned agreement.
With this background, I am really surprised to read the debates about same sex marriages in the western world notably in the US.
I am more surprised why the atheists are on the promoting side of the same sex marriages.
What beats me is this-
I understand there are more and more man-woman couples who are reluctant to marry. They question the logic behind the marriage.
At the same time when same sex couples want to 'sanctify' their relationship in 'marriage' it looks really funny.
What one does with their body and in consent with another adult with their bodies together is their private affair. Why do they want to call it a marriage?
Do they want to apply the same "possession" rule which accompanies a marriage? Or are they just interested in getting the property ownership which is a result of the 'marriage'?
And why are all the atheists in favor of calling it a marriage? Is it just because the religious people are opposed to it in the name of religion?
Should we oppose whatever those blokes say?
Do we start lieing or stealing or raping and say that it is all right just because those theist guys say that it is not right in the eyes of god?
Guys and lesbians go ahead and do whatever you want to do with each other. Just do not call it a marriage. It does not add any value to what you want to do.
Another question - Are n't there any guys and lesbians among the theists? I think there are more of them. They may not declare so in public - may be.
ANONYMOUS:
Hey, welcome.
I am more surprised why the atheists are on the promoting side of the same sex marriages.
It's partially a matter of sympatico - minorities do tend to have empathy towards 1 another.
What one does with their body and in consent with another adult with their bodies together is their private affair. Why do they want to call it a marriage?
There's numerous reasons, as I understand it.
Do they want to apply the same "possession" rule which accompanies a marriage? Or are they just interested in getting the property ownership which is a result of the 'marriage'?
Let's put forth a scenario (that, alas, has actually occurred numerous times in the US): 2 lifelong gay partners, 1 dies. The division of the estate is taken entirely out of the living partner's hands. Now, if you'd been a partner w/someone for say, 2 decades, once that person is gone, you get cut out of everything. All due to the gender thing. However, if it's male/female, the woman is brought into it.
I had a real-life example, which I can't find right this second. I'll go googling about.
And why are all the atheists in favor of calling it a marriage? Is it just because the religious people are opposed to it in the name of religion?
It's about discrimination.
Should we oppose whatever those blokes say?
W/in reason. I can't speak to the atmosphere in your country, but over here, these people are going WAY over the top. On everything.
Do we start lieing or stealing or raping and say that it is all right just because those theist guys say that it is not right in the eyes of god?
Oh now, come on. That's somewhat extreme, don't you think?
Guys and lesbians go ahead and do whatever you want to do with each other. Just do not call it a marriage. It does not add any value to what you want to do.
So they get every perk except 1? Does that sound right to you?
Another question - Are n't there any guys and lesbians among the theists? I think there are more of them. They may not declare so in public - may be.
Yes there are. Which shows it's not about 'fighting every single thing they (theists) say'.
Exclusion is the enemy of liberty, way I see it.
Anonymous:
Here's a pretty good article -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4497416.stm
Now tell me: these 2 blokes have been exclusive for 39 yrs. Is it fair to deny them the same rights as a 'normal' couple, or not?
Individual equity or marriage as a compelling state interest in this day and time?
How odd!
I have no quarrel with anyone sticking it to the anti-gay marriage nitwits. Something that has cropped up in the comments that interests me is the little-discussed assumption that women are the more rational of the two genders and that the world would be a more progressive or less militaristic place if they ran it.
Margaret Thatcher led her country into and through the Falkland's war and championed a return to Victorian values. Indira Gandhi was hardly a pacifist, nor did India enjoy stunning prosperity or internal unity under her government. Hillary Clinton is less militaristic than, well, McCain. Enough said.
Color me a Cro-Magnon patriarchist (was that a word?), but I have a nasty suspicion the world would look depressingly familiar if women ran it.
(Full disclosure: I'm an atheist and an XY chromosome bearer. I like the blog and like your comments. You may vent at me at jncerny@yahoo.com)
Post a Comment